A person arrested in connection with bailable offence has right to bail. Right to bail is an absolute and indefeasible right. A person released on bail is still considered to be detained in the constructive custody of the court through his surety.
A person arrested in connection with bailable offence has right to bail. Right to bail is an absolute and indefeasible right. A person released on bail is still considered to be detained in the constructive custody of the court through his surety.
A person arrested in connection with bailable offence has right to bail. Right to bail is an absolute and indefeasible right. A person released on bail is still considered to be detained in the constructive custody of the court through his surety.
for his release Whartons law lexicon: to set at liberty a person arrested or prisoned on security being taken for his appearance on a day at certain place which security is called as bail. Blacks law dictionary: it stands for procuring release of one charged with an offence by insuring his future attendance in court and compelling him to remain with in the jurisdiction of court.
HISTORY
During the mogul rule the Indian legal system is
recorded to have an institution of bail. The use of this system finds reference in the 17 th century travelogue of Italian traveler MANUCCI After the advent of British rule in India the criminal courts were using two forms of bail muchalka- Release could be affected on declaration in writing. Which was an penal bond generally taken from inferiors by an act of compulsion. Zamanat- surety became answerable for the accused on the basis of written deed.
CONTD
Under the doctrine of tazeer, courts are vested with the
discretionary power of granting bail.
However the form and contents of the British institution
of bail were statutorily transposed by passing of criminal procedure code 1861, followed by its re enactment in 1872 and 1898.
SEC 436
A person arrested in connection with bailable offence has
right to bail Right to bail is an absolute and indefeasible right. Proviso to sec 436 provides that if the accused is indigent and is unable to furnish surety he shall be released on his executing personal bond. if the person fails to comply with the condition the bail may be cancelled.
BAIL: SECURITY FOR APPERANCE
Bailable offences have been defined u/s 2(a) of cr.p.c.
bail in its fundamental concept is a security for the prisoners appetence to answer the charge at a specified time and place. The release on bail does not change the reality and from that fact alone, it cannot be said that he is not a person arrested for an offence. A person released on bail is still considered to be detained in the constructive custody of the court through his surety. An order for bail application does not finally determine the guilt or innocence of the accused of an offence.
CONTD
In Husain ra khatoon v. home secretary state of bihar
The supreme court held that a accused can be released on personal bond without sureties if the following factors are satisfied
Length of his residence in the community
Employment status Reputation , character and monetary condition Prior criminal records Nature of offences and other factors indicating the ties of the accused to the community bearing on the risk and willful failure to appear.
CONDITIONS FOR BAIL
The person has been accused of bailable offences.
The person has been arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of police station.
The accused is prepared to give bail.
CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH RELEASE
ON BAIL IS MANDATORY
Where the arrestee is accused of the bailable offence
Where the investigation is not completed within the time prescribed where the trial before the magistrate not concluded with in 60 days Where no reasonable grounds exist for believing the accused guilty after conclusion of trial but before judgment.
CANCELLATION OF BAIL
MONIT MALHORA V, STATE OF ORISSA
the magistrate has power to cancel bail, deciding factor being whether the accused by his behavior and conduct forfeited the concession shown to him.
TALAB HAJI HUSSAIN V. MADHUKAR
SC held that inherent powers of the HC ( sec 561 ) has to be exercises sparingly carefully with cautioned only such exercise is justified. it also held that once the bail was cancelled u/s 496 the accused cannot demand bail again as a right.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
Bail is a right and refusal is an exception . However
the courts can impose condition while granting bail but such condition must be reasonable. Cr p c gives only the outline of the provision of bail but most of the work is done by the courts themselves. The judicial principle laid down by the higher judiciary should be incorporated in the provisions relating bail. There is no statutory limit fixed on the amount of bail bond or number of sureties the entire matter has been lost to the discretionary of the court.
United States v. Samuel Robert Queen, Jr., A/K/A Fat Sammy, United States of America v. Samuel Robert Queen, Jr., A/K/A Fat Sammy, United States of America v. Samuel Robert Queen, Jr., A/K/A Fat Sammy, 95 F.3d 43, 4th Cir. (1996)